User blog:Tesseractcubed/LP1
Note: I messed up my initial report, and my revisit to this report is here for a view of how I went wrong. So we see a new generation of parts, for reusable rockets, for a new generation of space travel. Everyone is screaming out at how innovative this new generation of rocketry will be. This is going to be a new age of rockets, with more powerful and cheaper rockets. Except no. In real life, legs and fuel cost weight, which is what rocket designers try to AVOID adding. Performance suffers when you add such items, meaning that launching (in real life) a falcon 9 without legs is CHEAPER and MORE EFFECTIVE. The only bonus for adding the legs is the fact that SpaceX can recover the fuel tanks, engines, legs, and flight avioics, reducing the cost by not having to rebuild the rocket. In Space Agency, the new part named LP1 only costs 4M, but this is at a reduced payload capacity. Even though the rocket can put payloads to orbit for less than the Black Arrow, the flaw is in carrying capacity. The rocket is meant to use a Tug Module as the upper stage, with payload and fairing all able to reach orbit. The main flaw is that it cannot easily carry more than one rocket engine for second / deep space* stages. This limits its' ability to launch missions that require long amounts of time in orbit or missions meant to reach light speed. Price is a bonus with the LP1, as each launch after the first 4M investment only costs 1M for the LP1. Still, the fairings and tugs have to be accounted for, and the time of 1-2 minutes per landing means the rocket decreases launch cost, but increases the time per launch, meaning that each launch is 2-3 times as long BEFORE exiting the launch sequence. The missions require you to use only one launch configuration, as you do not have any money on mission 32 to be wasted: You will use every cent given to complete your mission. Anomaly: The rocket is named the same as Landing pad 1 (LP1), so....? Another anomaly is that if you separate the stages, you do not see the launchpad or the rest of the rocket, only the landing pad. The last anomaly is that we lost the cool Eagle8 skin (former LP1 idea), which would have looked better, but the LP1 also has less acceleration from a first comparison between the video(Eagle8) and personal experience(LP1), which makes up for the seemingly less power. My personal opinion is that the LP1 should have an auto land sequence unlocked after another mission, which would require (in my mind) 5 or so launches, in which you have to land every time to complete the mission, as well as launch the payloads to orbit. Otherwise, I will NOT be using the LP1 stage for regular use, as it drains time. If and only if landing the rocket gives you more launch credits (So you could get quick launches quicker) would I consider using the rocket for more missions. The Ariane 5 is still a better launcher for SANDBOX, as I prefer increased payload and launch speed over price and cool landing animation. The price is beneficial for future career missions, but I will avoid it unless I feel like the challenge. Tesseractcubed (Profile) (Blog) Original post on Blogspot / Blogger, as well as all other Parts & Reviews Category:Blog posts